BHAGWATI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 26.06.2020 issued by respondent No.3 qua non-recommendation of its (petitioner-College's) name for affiliation and admission in Diploma in Pharmacy Course for Session 2020-21 as well as the letter dated 13.08.2020 issued by the said respondent denying reconsideration of its earlier decision, i.e the said letter dated 26.06.2020. A further prayer for staying the operation of both the above-said impugned letters and for permitting the petitioner-College to admit 60 students in the said Course has also been made.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the averments as set-forth by the petitioner in this petition, are that it is an unaided self-financed Pharmacy College and has been set up by Bhagwati Professional Educational Society. The said Society had, initially, applied to respondent No.2-All India Council of Technical Education (for short 'AICTE'), in accordance with Regulation 1.2 of All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2018 (for short 'Regulations of 2018'), for grant of permission to initiate the said Course in the Session 2019-20 which was so granted vide letter dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure P-2) for a period of two years, i.e from 2019 to 2021. Respondent No.3-Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training (for short 'PSBTE& IT') is the Controlling Authority in the State of Punjab for setting up a new Pharmacy College as well as for the inspection of the infrastructure available therein. Vide notification dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.4-Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab (for short 'DTEIT') had also appointed respondent No.3- PSBTE and IT as the competent authority for conducting admissions in the said Course of two years for Academic Session 2019-20. On 20.09.2018, respondent No.3 issued a consent letter to it (petitioner-College) for starting the said Course with 60 seats for the Session 2019-20. Respondent No.3 carried out the necessary inspection of the petitioner-College for the purpose of granting permission to start the said Course. However, the petitioner received letter dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure P-6) from respondent No.3 wherein it was intimated that its name had not been recommended for affiliation as well as admission in the said Course. Then, the petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition bearing No.21829 of 2019 before this Court challenging the said letter Annexure P-6 and vide order dated 17.09.2019 (Annexure P-7) as passed therein, this Court quashed the said letter and also imposed a cost of Rs.18 lacs upon respondent No.3. Though respondent No.3 preferred a Review Application bearing No.483 of 2019 in the said CWP but the same is still pending.

(3.) The petitioner has, further, averred that vide letter dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure P-8), it again applied to respondent No.3, in the prescribed performa along-with the Demand Draft of the requisite fee, for seeking affiliation for the Session 2020-21. Vide communication dated 19.03.2020 (Annexure P-9), respondent No.3 asked it to appear before the Hearing Committee on 26.03.2020. However, the said hearing was postponed to 10.06.2020 and on that day, its representative appeared before the said Committee. Thereafter, vide the impugned letter dated 26.06.2020 (Annexure P-12), respondent No.3 conveyed to it that its case for affiliation for the Session 2020-21 had been dismissed. As per the said letter, respondent No.3 has denied its (petitioner-College's) affiliation on two grounds; firstly, for its not having applied for a fresh consent letter and secondly, on account of its not having given any proper reply in respect of the Change of Land Use (for short 'CLU') documents submitted for seeking affiliation for the Session 2019-20 whereas, in fact, the consent letter, which had been issued by respondent No.3 in its favour for the Session 2019-20, was to continue as respondent No.2-AICTE had given the requisite approval having the validity of two years and so far as the CLU permission documents were concerned, it has already applied to the competent authority for the same on 15.09.2020 and has also deposited the requisite fee for this purpose. On 02.07.2020, it again requested respondent No.3 for reconsidering its said decision Annexure P-12 but vide the impugned letter dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P-15), respondent No.3 conveyed to it that the matter could not be reconsidered. Both the impugned letters deserve to be quashed as these smack of bias and discrimination.